26 Nov 2003 | Ben Langhinrichs said...

Are you ready to be free of constant surveillance? Not to be paranoid, but once the chip is embedded as a "convenience", what exactly is going to stop the governent or anyone else with access from monitoring your every move?

26 Nov 2003 | ajr said...

Not for me...

26 Nov 2003 | pb said...

I don't think we will see this in our lifetimes. The benefits are negligible and the downside unknown, at best.

26 Nov 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

In my opinion, none of Cossolotto's arguments hold water. For instance:

In arguing against having these tags embedded in key fobs or cards:
"If you lose the RFID key fob or if its stolen, someone else could use it and have access to your important accounts --- Ok. What if you're kidnapped or held otherwise captive? Technically, couldn't you be then considered as vunerable as a stolen card?

These quotes are just as priceless,
"sufficiently dedicated thieves may try to slice the tags out of their victims."

"When your bank card is compromised, all you have to do is make a call to the issuer, Hoofnagle said. In this case, you have to make a call to a surgeon."

I'm seeing why their stock price slipped from $12.00 to $0.40.

No thanks.

26 Nov 2003 | Carl said...

What if you're kidnapped or held otherwise captive? Technically, couldn't you be then considered as vunerable as a stolen card?

Come on. That's far less likely than a stolen card. Plus, if you are kidnapped they have you AND your cards so what's the difference?

26 Nov 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

I am getting so, so tired of "experts" who are telling us why the world is turning into such an awful place (and who also seem to be the only ones who can get air time).

This is the same crap that surrounds fears of national ID cards. People are afraid of one thing defining them, so they keep 13 things instead, and lose them more often than having them stolen.

No one understands the risk because it's "too big to understand so let's just be afraid." I am not saying that the risk is more than the reward or vice versa because I don't know for sure. Try these for more information in general RFID Privacy Blog, and the Information Security Forum. Risk Management, the "plastics" of today. Right, JF? :)

Speaking of risk and design ;) anyone out there (here) designing products with RFIDs? I was talking with one of the regulars here the other day. Wouldn't it be neat if you were traveling in other countries and the price tags converted to the currency you were familiar with automatically?

Lastly, I like the context sensitivity of the popup ad associated with the linked article. "Get your mini secuirty cam now!"

26 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

anyone out there (here) designing products with RFIDs?

We design software that works with RFIDs in the livestock industry. Works well. Not terribly interesting outside the world of livestock, though. ;o)

I have to admit that it'd be nice to have an ID that I wouldn't loose. At the same time, I wouldn't want my arm chopped off so someone can get to my ATM account.

Also, remember that multiple ID systems means loosing one is less likely to provide access to all of the others. If you have one ID for everything, it only takes one item to gain complete control to everything you have/do.

26 Nov 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

Even with RFID, I can't imagine (well I can if I try hard enough) getting rid of passwords. Whether it's something you enter via keypad, or fingerprint, or eye scan, or voice. I wouldn't want my arm chopped off either, but I think the likelyhood of that happening to me is slim enough to not care about.

Just for the Web, how many people use the same password for all the things they do? I do.

Darrel, what does the software do, if you are able to say. I understand the whole proprietary thing.

26 Nov 2003 | kev said...

... which is why a trusted authentication network is necessary. de-centralized and rated by an impartial authority. one of my clients (who knows how to open-source his company's software to his advantage) is building a digital ID network, primary now for single sign-on to multuple websitees/applications (which sounds marginally useful for the commercial web, but really gets interesting when you're talking about it on multiple, disparate enterprise-level systems internal to a company). no one's going to chop off your arm or steal your cellphone (if that whole cellphone-as-wireless-credit-card thing ever happens) because the speed with which you can turn off such a stolen ID would land the person responsible in jail the first time they tried to use it.

what are they going to do.. walk up to the counter at nordstrom's with your dismembered arm? highly doubtful.

26 Nov 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

"Come on. That's far less likely than a stolen card..."

Carl, my case is that if you have the data that's currently stored on a card in your back pocket transferred to your arm - why would those who would take that information today not be motivated to modify their efforts? I'm thinking of this in a scenario where the implants would completely replace cards, keys...

The main problem I see with this - as it's presented in the link Mr. Bird offered for this post, and also this archived link from Wired - is, if your body is constantly sending out radio signals to activate sensors, how do you turn it off? How do you report it stolen or being used against your will? If you're driving down the tollway in Texas and your EZ-Tag information is stored in your implanted chip - and the same applies to your passengers - how does the sensor know which account to debit?

These questions are not fear-based, just honest.

26 Nov 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

Sorry, I guess I didn't close the tag on my previous link to the archived story at Wired

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.02/warwick.html

26 Nov 2003 | Michael Spina said...

If you're driving down the tollway in Texas and your EZ-Tag information is stored in your implanted chip - and the same applies to your passengers - how does the sensor know which account to debit?

Interesting question. I think my car would recognize me as the driver, and relay the information to the toll booth. After it adjusted the power seats and mirrors automatically to my liking, and loaded my personal playlist on the MP3 player. This implant thing could have benefits besides bank accounts.

26 Nov 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

"I think my car would recognize me..."

Therefore, this technology, which is designed to make my life more convenient, is now placing a financial burden on me to buy new cars or other devices designed to accept the implants radio signals?

Again, I say - no thanks.

26 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

Darrel, what does the software do, if you are able to say. I understand the whole proprietary thing.

Well, RFID tags really don't *do* much at all. They're just an ID. We have livestock management software on a Palm OS handheld. You scan the chip, and the chip just sends a signal to the handheld that 'this is animal #whatever'. Then, based on that, we can do a few different things with our software, such as look up an animal's record, automatically enter data for that animal, etc.

With livestock, the appeal of the chip is that it stays with the animal througout it's life, and you can have equipment that can read it systematically (such as when you run animals through a chute).

As for the arm-chopping off fear, I suppose it does make sense that you would still have passwords...the chip is just your username, so-to-speak.

Of course, what if my wife needs to borrow my ATM card?

if your body is constantly sending out radio signals to activate sensors

FYI, most RFID tags are not internally powered. They are read only when an external reader sends a signal to the chip.

26 Nov 2003 | Ryan Schroeder said...

Why not just carry one card (or watch, or shoe, or belt, or phone, or...) that contains the RFID chip? most of the benefits without the freakish cyborg/big brother stuff.

Also, how hard would it be to spoof someone's ID?

26 Nov 2003 | Richard Bird said...

Excellent!

[ Mark Fusco] If you're driving down the tollway in Texas and your EZ-Taginformation is stored in your implanted chip - and the same applies to your passengers - how does the sensor know which account to debit?

[ Ryan Schroeder] Why not just carry one card (or watch, or shoe, or belt, or phone, or...) that contains the RFID chip?

Very, very good points from both. I love the problem of "proximity." That is, what happens when two (or more) RFID carriers are in the same relevant space? Excellent. I've not seen an answer to this.

And has the idea of a card (or other object) carrying the RFID ever been suggested? It seems to make sense, except for the risk of theft.

Very, very good points raised.

27 Nov 2003 | Joe said...

Schwarzenegger is governor, Orrin Hatch wants to make him President, and now RFID tags under the skin.

Next thing you know, we're all going to be eating at Taco Bell singing advertising jingles.

09 Dec 2003 | David Locke said...

Today, RFID is being built into the clothes you buy. Someone with a scanner can read every stitch of clothing you have on. If you change your underwear, someone can know.

What they don't know is who you are. That would take a hack into the retailer's computers. But, if we have RFID implanted, it would just take a query to some DNS like server.

But, even without knowing who you are, someone scanning your clothing could determine your approximate net worth and kidnap you based on what you wear.

Comboing this with your RFID and you would be toast.

02 May 2004 | poker rooms said...

poker rooms